[MonteQuest]

I said it was not an unproven theory or forecast. Both are proven.

Where?

Here:

When I say it is not a prediction, I mean it is not an unproven theory or forecast of things to come. Jevon's Paradox wouldn't exist if not for observed reality following efficieincy gains...whether or not the free market is ideal is moot. It doesn't change observed reality.

Is this some game for you?

[MonteQuest]

Is Jevon's Paradox a proven theory?

We have 150 years of empirical data that says it is.

A proof is a logical argument, not an empirical one. Asserting that "We have 150 years of empirical data that says it is." does not constitute a proof. It would be more accurate to describe Jevons Paradox as a postulate rather than a proven theory.

Matters not what you call it, the results are the same; efficiency gains results in increased use.

Look around you.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Here:

When I say it is not a prediction, I mean it is not an unproven theory or forecast of things to come. Jevon's Paradox wouldn't exist if not for observed reality following efficieincy gains...whether or not the free market is ideal is moot. It doesn't change observed reality.

That's not a proof. And no, this is not a game for me.

Matters not what you call it, the results are the same; efficiency gains results in increased use.

Not in all cases.

[MonteQuest]

Here:

When I say it is not a prediction, I mean it is not an unproven theory or forecast of things to come. Jevon's Paradox wouldn't exist if not for observed reality following efficieincy gains...whether or not the free market is ideal is moot. It doesn't change observed reality.

That's not a proof. And no, this is not a game for me.

Direct observation of reality is proof enough for most theories I know of. And I didn't post it as proof, but to answer your question on where I said it.

Matters not what you call it, the results are the same; efficiency gains results in increased use.

Not in all cases.

Please provide data to support this. And make it relevant to the topic of discussion, i.e. that conservation and energy efficiency gains have decreased energy use, especially with regard to transportation...as that is where the biggest problem lies.

From Aaron's original post:

The contemporary significance of the Jevons paradox is seen with respect to the automobile in the United States. The introduction of more energy-efficient automobiles in this country in the 1970s did not curtail the demand for fuel because driving increased and the number of cars on the road soon doubled. Similarly, technological improvements in refrigeration simply led to more and larger refrigerators. The same tendencies are in effect within industry, independent of individual consumption.

What he is saying is, I think, that people will consume what is available, over time, to the limits of it's availability. So that by increasing the energy efficiency of oil use, we will actually stimulate the growth in oil consumption and accelerate depletion rates.

[tsakach]

Matters not what you call it, the results are the same; efficiency gains results in increased use.

I respect your effort in trying to help people grasp the concept. It would be helpful if the terms used to describe the concept were clearly defined, and references to studies and data are made available to help people come to conclusions on their own.

One thing I don't understand is why do discussions on Peak Oil use Jevons Paradox rather than the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate (KB)? Much more current research is available for KB than Jevons Paradox. The Rebound Effect is related to KB and is also widely studied. Using an older version of this concept makes it more difficult for people to find information on this important subject.

[MonteQuest]

I respect your effort in trying to help people grasp the concept. It would be helpful if the terms used to describe the concept were clearly defined, and references to studies and data are made available to help people come to conclusions on their own.

There are 17 pages with all kinds of clear definitions, links, and outside data in this thread alone. I know of at least two other threads with even more.

I provided the most recent data just a few posts back.

The concept is simple: put something on sale and people will buy more of it.

[tsakach]

There are 17 pages with all kinds of clear definitions, links, and outside data in this thread alone. I know of at least two other threads with even more.

It is very tedious wading through these long threads, because as you are well aware, there is a lot of extraneous fluff to sift through. A sticky with the relevant information would be extremely helpful. And why do you not acknowledge the Khazzoom Brookes postulate? I would think it is one of the best concepts in support of the Jevons Paradox.

[MonteQuest]

It is very tedious wading through these long threads, because as you are well aware, there is a lot of extraneous fluff to sift through. A sticky with the relevant information would be extremely helpful. .

Tough. I have to repeat myself enough the way it is. We try to get people to not post off-topic chaff as laid out in the COC, but they persist in doing so, quoting unnecessary text, images, making flip remarks, etc. Even if we posted such a sticky, it would be disputed. You just have to do the homework. We have no Cliff Notes.

And why do you not acknowledge the Khazzoom Brookes postulate? I would think it is one of the best concepts in support of the Jevons Paradox

Jevon's Paradox, The Rebound Effect and this postulate are one and the same is why, just with small twists.

In particular, there is a school of thought, deriving from the work of the nineteenth century economist Stanley Jevons, which argues that while increased energy efficiency at the microeconomic level may lead to a reduction in energy use, at the macroeconomic level it in fact leads to an increase in overall energy use.

3.5. Dr Brookes' argument is that for any resource, including energy, "to offer greater utility per unit is for it to enjoy a reduction in its implicit price". Cheaper energy has two effects: the substitution of energy for other factors of production, which are now relatively more expensive, and the release of income which can then be reinvested in new production capacity, and so on. As a result, Dr Brookes argues, developed countries have, since the Industrial Revolution, seen "rising energy productivity outstripped by rising total factor productivity, hence rising energy consumption alongside rising energy productivity".

3.6. A further consequence of this argument is that while rises in the price of energy may stimulate improvements in energy efficiency, such improvements, rather than leading to a lasting fall in energy use, may serve to accommodate the price rise, with the result that energy consumption stabilises at a higher level than it otherwise would.

Almost the same language Aaron and I have been using.

[MonteQuest]

But, since you insist:

3.7. The "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", though it has not been proven empirically, is consistent with classical economic theory, and offers a plausible explanation of patterns of energy use in developed economies. As Professor Paul Ekins, head of the Environment Group at the Policies Studies Institute and co-Director of the new United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC), told us, "In the economics literature it is … well known that increased efficiency in the use of a resource leads over time to greater use of that resource and not less use of it" (Q 261).

[29] This might explain, for instance, why there appears to be no example of a developed society that has succeeded in combining sustained reductions in energy consumption with economic growth. Mr Alan Meier, of the IEA, referred to "several countries that, for brief periods, reduced their electricity consumption or their energy consumption"—often in response to short-term supply crises—but such reductions in demand have never been sustained.

This does not mean that sustained reductions in energy consumption are impossible—simply that it is yet to be demonstrated that they are possible. (Q 424)

Link

Kinda sets the nail on the coffin, doesn' t?

Many are counting on it being possible to mitigate peakoil.

Quite the gamble in my estimation.

It just may be a fact that greater efficiency in the use of energy is one of the principle drivers of economic growth, period.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Direct observation of reality is proof enough for most theories I know of.

If something is based off of direct observation then it is simply that, an observation. Those theories you know of aren't valid or useful theories unless they are proven.

And I didn't post it as proof, but to answer your question on where I said it.

I was asking where the proof was.

Please provide data to support this. And make it relevant to the topic of discussion, i.e. that conservation and energy efficiency gains have decreased energy use, especially with regard to transportation...as that is where the biggest problem lies.

I have a vehicle that gets ~50mpg. The vehicle I drove before gets ~20mpg. I increased my energy efficiency wrt transportation. During my last year of driving the 20mpg vehicle I drove over 10,000 miles. In the year I have had the 50mpg I have driven under 7,000 miles. My vehicle efficiency has increased, but my energy use has decreased.

Any peak in any fuel used for transportation violates Jevon's Paradox. Increases in price lead to increases in efficiency,

In Europe the average fuel consumption of the car fleet as well as the numbers of kilometres driven per car per year is lower than American levels

In general, vehicle efficiency will increase as supply decreases because the cost of fuel will increase, this is the case in Europe. Increased fuel costs have led to increased vehicle efficiency in the past and they will again. Now a fundamental property of the peak in oil, or peak in anything, is that there will never be as much present on the market again. So post peak we have a decrease in supply and an increase in efficiency. According to Jevon's Paradox this increase in efficiency should result in more consumption, but since there isn't as much oil post peak, by definition of peak, increases in efficiency cannot lead to increases in consumption. There isn't more oil to consume, in fact there is less.

Jevon's Paradox is applicable to resources where consumption is encouraged in order to maximise profit, especially when that profit can only be made during a specific time interval. It is not always applicable, because consumption is not always encouraged to maximize profit. There are other socio-economic factors at work.

(source)

[DrChaos]

me: <i>With increased efficiency, Japanese drive more efficient cars, and as far as I am aware, they don't drive two or three of them at a time.</i>

response: <i>
You didn't read this thread first did ya?

1st page, 1st post...

Quote:
The introduction of more energy-efficient automobiles in this country in the 1970s did not curtail the demand for fuel because driving increased and the number of cars on the road soon doubled.</i>

Is "this country" Japan or USA? I mentioned Japan because there is a distinct recognition of a national imperative for energy efficiency.

The efficiency improvments of cars in 1970s certainly did decrease oil consumption below its previous trend in the USA. Also it is impossible to ignore the obvious subsequent facts, namely that starting in early 80's real oil prices decreased very significantly for many years afterwards and fuel efficiency standards were not increased, and the huge loophole for trucks & SUVs remained in the USA.

Let's also not confuse "energy consumption" with petroleum consumption---it is fossil petroleum which is by far the imminent depletion.

And note that population increases can always overcome all efficiency improvements. Again, Japan has low or negative population growth as they are highly anti-immigration.

[MonteQuest]

I was asking where the proof was.

No, you didn't.

Forecast and prediction are synonyms. So you are stating that it can be predictive, but it is not a forecast. It is A, but it is not A. A contradiction. You don't seem to grasp logic.

You were asking where I clarified this:

I said it was not an unproven theory or forecast. Both are proven.

To which I responded:

When I say it is not a prediction, I mean it is not an unproven theory or forecast of things to come. Jevon's Paradox wouldn't exist if not for observed reality following efficieincy gains...whether or not the free market is ideal is moot. It doesn't change observed reality.

This is a game for you.

The proof is in the 150 years of empirical data to support it and the mere existence of Jevon's Paradox born of the direct observation.

The following analogies illustrate the consequences of improved efficiency on demand from the labor markets and aircraft travel.

1. Employees are told that they must raise their productivity if they are to improve their job prospects. However on the macrolevel the increased economic output, resulting from higher labor productivity, has lead (in the long term) to a growth in the number of employees.

2. The introduction of wide bodied passenger aircraft, to replace smaller aircraft, was forecast to reduce the number of flights. In fact the resulting lower cost per passenger led, in a competitive market, to a large increase in air travel that more than offset the increased size of the aircraft. The raised productivity per aircraft called for more aircraft, not fewer.

I have a vehicle that gets ~50mpg. The vehicle I drove before gets ~20mpg. I increased my energy efficiency wrt transportation. During my last year of driving the 20mpg vehicle I drove over 10,000 miles. In the year I have had the 50mpg I have driven under 7,000 miles. My vehicle efficiency has increased, but my energy use has decreased.

What did you do with the savings? Throw it away? This money will be spent on other goods. These will entail energy consumption, creating a "rebound effect". Micro versus macro.

If you save it, it is then just loaned out to someone else to spend on energy consumption.

I asked for hard data, not an anecdote.

Increases in price lead to increases in efficiency,

Yes...but:

The effect of higher energy prices, either through taxes or producer-induced shortages, initially reduces demand but in the longer term encourages greater energy efficiency. This efficiency response amounts to a partial accommodation of the price rise and thus the reduction in demand is blunted. The end result is a new balance between supply and demand at a higher level of supply and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response.

In Europe the average fuel consumption of the car fleet as well as the numbers of kilometres driven per car per year is lower than American levels

Considering the distances we travel in the US and the way our cities are laid out, that is to be expected.

According to Jevon's Paradox this increase in efficiency should result in more consumption, but since there isn't as much oil post peak, by definition of peak, increases in efficiency cannot lead to increases in consumption. There isn't more oil to consume, in fact there is less.

Asked and answered so many times in this thread as to be ad naseum. Will not efficiency gains and conservation make more energy available than it would have been otherwise? If so, in a free market an increase in supply will lower the price relative to what it would have been, thus increasing consumption.

[DrChaos]

If we were to believe the doomer argument on "Jevons paradox", we'd be hunting 100,000 whales a day by now, but obviously we hit Peak Whaling first.

We will be using less petroleum whether we like it or not (and most will not), and in this cirumstance efficiency gains will happen and stick and people will bitch.

[MonteQuest]

And note that population increases can always overcome all efficiency improvements.

Sorry, the data doesn't support that position.

[MonteQuest]

If we were to believe the doomer argument on "Jevons paradox", we'd be hunting 100,000 whales a day by now, but obviously we hit Peak Whaling first.

No one is suggesting we can consume oil that is not there, but that we will consume oil right up to it's point of availability, And if we gain some supply due to conservation or efficiency gains we will suck it up as well, especially if the price is lower..relative to what it would have been without conservation or efficiency gains.

When the price goes down, you increase consumption, relative to what it might have been....even in a declining supply scenario.

However, if supply declines faster than efficiency gains, then the price won't drop.

Which brings us back to the whole point: conservation and efficiency are not a peak oil solution by any measure. Only a very short-term stopgap.

Thus, post-peak, if oil declines faster than efficiency gains, then Jevon's becomes irelevant...and only then.

And if conservation and efficiency gains cannot offset peakoil losses, then the whole debate becomes moot.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I was asking where the proof was.

No, you didn't.

I said it was not an unproven theory or forecast. Both are proven.

Where?

Lets see... you mentioned that Jevon's Paradox is a proven theory and forecast. I asked "Where?"

You were asking where I clarified this:

I said it was not an unproven theory or forecast. Both are proven.

You stated, "Both are proven." I asked "Where?"
Let's try this again. Where are the theory and forecast of Jevon's Paradox proven?

The proof is in the 150 years of empirical data to support it and the mere existence of Jevon's Paradox born of the direct observation.

That is not a proof. Where is the proof?

What did you do with the savings? Throw it away? This money will be spent on other goods. These will entail energy consumption, creating a "rebound effect". Micro versus macro.

Jevon's Paradox isn't about all resources. It is about a single resource, and what happens to consumption when efficiency is increased. If we're talking about the changes in different resources with respect to their supply and the efficiency that they're being used with, then we're not talking about Jevon's Paradox.

Chapter Seven of The Coal Question was entitled "Of the Economy of Fuel." Here he argued that increased efficiency in using a natural resource, such as coal, only resulted in increased demand for that resource, not a reduction in demand.

I asked for hard data, not an anecdote.

That is hard data. My insurance company has records of my mileage and vehicle efficiency is exhibitory.

Increases in price lead to increases in efficiency,

Yes...but:

The effect of higher energy prices, either through taxes or producer-induced shortages, initially reduces demand but in the longer term encourages greater energy efficiency. This efficiency response amounts to a partial accommodation of the price rise and thus the reduction in demand is blunted. The end result is a new balance between supply and demand at a higher level of supply and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response.

So we can call something Jevon's Paradox when it's applicable, but when it's violated, i.e. efficiency increases but consumption doesn't, we'll just ignore that. Wait, I have another paradox for you, lets call it BS's Paradox

If efficiency increases, consumption may increase or decrease. If efficiency decreases, consumption may increase or decrease. Consumption may also stay constant.

Considering the distances we travel in the US and the way our cities are laid out, that is to be expected.

Yes, we are more spread out and travel more. Of course we have cars that aren't as fuel efficient, that makes perfect sense. Consumption is directly related to efficiency, there are no other social or economic factors influencing consumption.

Asked and answered so many times in this thread as to be ad naseum. Will not efficiency gains and conservation make more energy available than it would have been otherwise? If so, in a free market an increase in supply will lower the price relative to what it would have been, thus increasing consumption.

No they won't. There is only a finite amount of any energy source at any given time. Increases in efficiency will not result in more of that resource. After the peak in any resource there is no way that Jevon's Paradox can hold true if efficiency increases because after peak, there is not more of a resource, there is less. Since Jevon's Paradox states consumption must increase, but consumption can't increase because there is less of the resource, then Jevon's Paradox does not hold in all cases.

If a theorem has no stipulated bounds, then it must be true in all cases. Since Jevon's Paradox has no stipulated bounds, if it an example is presented that illustrates an instance where it does not hold, then it is disproven. This means that Jevon's Paradox is at most an observation, that does not hold in all cases. If you think it holds during some stipulated bounds, then you would present these, and state, "This is why I think Jevon's Paradox is valid during such and such..." Unfortunately, we have a problem. This isn't Jevon's Paradox any more, this is another paradox, perhaps "MonteQuest's Paradox"?

Not to say that there's anything wrong with basing predictions and forecasts off observations, but it's not very accurate. You may as well start a thread about things rolling downhill. Because if some things roll downhill, then all things roll downhill, and that my friend... Is potentially devastating.

I would suggest brushing up on logic before claiming any other observations are theorems. When you state consumption, I believe you're thinking of utilization, how much a certain amount of a resource can do, and in that case, of course utilization increases because utilization is proportional to efficiency... And yes, humans may consume all of a resource that is available, but unless that resource is always increasing (i.e. infinite) then consumption can't increase all the time.
If you would like to discuss something rationally, that would be great. Until then Senior MonteQuest...

[Doly]

And if we gain some supply due to conservation or efficiency gains we will suck it up as well, especially if the price is lower..relative to what it would have been without conservation or efficiency gains.

The difference, Monte, is not on the level of consumption, then.

The difference is on how many people can afford to enjoy the resource and how much benefit they can extract from it. With efficiency, more people can afford the resource, and extract from it more benefit.

So, conservation does achieve something, doesn't it?

Which brings us back to the whole point: conservation and efficiency are not a peak oil solution by any measure. Only a very short-term stopgap.

Thus, post-peak, if oil declines faster than efficiency gains, then Jevon's becomes irelevant...and only then.

And if conservation and efficiency gains cannot offset peakoil losses, then the whole debate becomes moot.

No, Monte, the debate is not moot. You say conservation doesn't solve peak oil. I say conservation is the difference between a hard crash and a soft landing. And for me, that can be considered as solving a lot of the peak oil issue.

[dub_scratch]

The difference, Monte, is not on the level of consumption, then.

The difference is on how many people can afford to enjoy the resource and how much benefit they can extract from it. With efficiency, more people can afford the resource, and extract from it more benefit.

So, conservation does achieve something, doesn't it?

I think we need to get our terminology strait. Don't you mean to say that energy efficiency achieves something? 'Conservation' is not a means to an end but an end to itself.

You are absolutely right that efficiency can allow more benefit from a resource. But the question needs to be framed as "does efficiency unhook our dependancy of a resource or does it increase our dependancy." Since fossil fuels are a depleting resource, that becomes a key question.

In the case of efficiency for individual cars the answer, undoubtedly, is that it increases our dependancy on fossil fuel. In a world of growing fuel resources increased MPG has produced-- or at least aided-- the increased consumption of oil. In an oil energy constrained world increases in fleet efficiency will prevent the society from taking measures to free itself from the resource in dependancy. The big blow from when the bottom drops out from underneath car dependent civilization.

Another key aspect to this is how some forms of fuel efficiency will divert resources away from more important enterprises. A super fuel efficient car will have to be manufactured in huge quantities and the stream of investment into the overall infrastructure will take resources away from building things like renewable energy or water infrastructure. Is a zero sum game, and in some ways incremental energy efficiency won't help us if it only goes to support unsustainable activities for a little longer while preventing more meaningful investments from being made.

[tsakach]

How does Jevons Paradox apply to non-grid connected renewable energy sources like solar panels, solar thermal, wind power or wood stoves?

For instance, with a wood burning stove, increased efficiency would result in less wood being gathered from the site. With non-grid connected photovoltaic systems, excess electricity is not used for anything - it doesn't go anywhere. Increasing the efficiency of a refrigerator will only result in a decrease in electricity use, since no market exists to absorb the excess energy.

These small independent energy sources operate on a microeconomic scale and are not connected to a grid or distribution network, so efficiency gains do not roll up to the macroeconomic scale. Increased efficiency does not generate extra money since the energy has already been paid for, and no market exists to sell the excess energy. In this case, macroeconomic energy distribution only occurs in the form of embodied energy in the durable good, such as a wood burning stove.

The point at which you go off grid releases the energy you were using back to the market, so Jevons Paradox would apply to this action. But from this point forward you no longer participate in the energy macroeconomy, so subsequent improvements in energy efficiency affect only the microeconomic level and do not result in increased demand caused by Jevons Paradox.

[TWilliam]

Jeezus you people make my head hurt...

Jevons did not 'theorize' or 'postulate' that an increase in efficiency would ultimately lead to an increase in consumption; he simply observed that that's what happens. If you increase the availability of a resource (i.e. reduce it's cost), whether by finding more of it or by increasing the efficiency of it's use, the ultimate outcome is that demand increases and more of it gets used, until physical limits prevent further expansion. End of story.

If you consider that really what we're ultimately talking about is sunlight (energy), then you begin to realize that this has happened throughout the course of human history. From hunting/gathering to agriculture to steam power first with wood then coal then oil and ultimately to internal combustion engines, we have repeatedly increased our efficiency in our use of sunlight, with the result that today we have the most solarly efficient civilization that has yet existed on this world (at least as far as we know), and we use more of it now than we ever have in the past.

Greater efficiency; greater consumption. Without exception.

Monte says we have 150 years of empirical evidence? He's wrong. We have several thousands of years of it that clearly demonstrate that Jevons' observation is correct.